Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Babylon]

Currently the Monarch (king or queen) adds nothing to the fortress aside from new demands to satisfy, and actually makes it so the trade liason doesn't show up any longer.  All the other nobles have a purpose of some sort.  I don't know exactly what purpose the monarch could bring, but there are a lot of possibilities.  You could start receiving tribute from other fortresses, you could be able to draft skilled soldiers from other places, you could subjugate the humans, elves, or goblins.  There are other possibilities as well.  I'd really like to see the arrival of the Monarch as more than simply a status marker.

[Catsup]

the purpose of the monarch is to lure into a room with many spikes attached to a lever and impale them, its kinda like the french revolution but in a dwarfy way.

[Loud Whispers]

Currently the Monarch (king or queen) adds nothing to the fortress aside from new demands to satisfy, and actually makes it so the trade liason doesn't show up any longer.  All the other nobles have a purpose of some sort.  I don't know exactly what purpose the monarch could bring, but there are a lot of possibilities.  You could start receiving tribute from other fortresses, you could be able to draft skilled soldiers from other places, you could subjugate the humans, elves, or goblins.  There are other possibilities as well.  I'd really like to see the arrival of the Monarch as more than simply a status marker.

The Monarch's likely to turn into the future gateway to controlling external settlements/armies and such. Could even become the representative of the Overseer, so it's planned.

[assasin]

Personally I hope to see a much less linear game. So if the monarch is useful I'd like to see an abilty to name your head noblemen a prince or archduke or whatever and declare independence and have the same abilities, to a lesser extent, obviously, as the monarch with realistic consequences [ie an army of thousands of really angry dwarves]. In other words it wouldn't be any less effort to get a monarch, because you'd have to survive the army coming to put down your rebellion. And your monarch would start out weaker than a regular monarch, noy having vassals in other fortressess . SO in other words it''d be an option to make your game move a bit fit faster, and making the chance to die a bit greater. But thats only if a monarch is useful. If not I don't care.

[Nicolo]

I'd like to see the monarch in charge of stuff like receiving tribute from surrounding duchies and baronies, and entertaining representatives and delegates, who will sometimes make a go at killing him if they don't get what they want/are a demonic infilitrator if the king/queen is not actively defended by the royal guard.

The demonic usurper starts making demands for 'dwarf blood' and such, naturally.

[Helari]

Personally I hope to see a much less linear game. So if the monarch is useful I'd like to see an abilty to name your head noblemen a prince or archduke or whatever and declare independence and have the same abilities, to a lesser extent, obviously, as the monarch with realistic consequences [ie an army of thousands of really angry dwarves]. In other words it wouldn't be any less effort to get a monarch, because you'd have to survive the army coming to put down your rebellion. And your monarch would start out weaker than a regular monarch, noy having vassals in other fortressess . SO in other words it''d be an option to make your game move a bit fit faster, and making the chance to die a bit greater. But thats only if a monarch is useful. If not I don't care.

Iirc political repercussions for your fort are planned if you refuse to become a barony/want to break free of your original civ at a point where your fort matters.